Legal Commentary

Dave's partial conversion means there is one less of us remaining in the bunker against PowerPoint--last one out, shut the lights.

But Dave's realization (if not epiphany) of three good uses triggers the question that I believe is at the heart of the debate: Is it about PowerPoint per se or is it about using visual back-ups to the conversation? It seems to me that two of Dave's three uses (all but # 3, more on that below) can be achieved as well (albeit perhaps more crudely and obviously less permanently) with an outline, chart, or diagram on the dry-erase board. In fact, I think it is more effective putting big-picture points on the board, because they remain up there throughout the lecture and I can keep coming back to them as we go. Is that enough, to give the material visually? Or is there also a demand for pretty colors and lights and striking images and whistles and bells? It seems to me that if it is the latter, then that changes the terms of the pedagogical discussion--from recognizing and respecting "different learning styles" (especially visual learners) to responding to shorter attention spans and the need for over-stimulation. Which may justify PowerPoint pedagogically--but it is a different argument.

Number 3--entertainment through counter-narrative--is the first good only-by-PowerPoint-use I have seen suggested. I can imagine exactly how this idea works and I must admit it is intriguing, even tempting. Ultimately, I think I would conclude that this limited beneficial use will not be worth the cost. But, like any recent convert, Dave is the best and most persuasive advocate for the cause.